Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing operational impacts of automation using functional resonance analysis method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interaction with automated systems and other types of technologies seems inevitable and almost a requirement of human work. The aviation sector, and in particular air traffic control, is devoting considerable efforts towards automation, to respond to the increased demand for capacity. Project AUTOPACE investigated the impacts of foreseeable automation over human performance and behaviour. The purpose was to identify new training requirements for air traffic controllers under foreseeable automation scenarios. In addition to the research carried out under the remit of AUTOPACE, the functional resonance analysis method was used to explore how the interactions between human operators and technology may change, as new automation features would be introduced into ATC operations. The FRAM model was developed based on AUTOPACE concept of operations, two levels of automation (E2 and E1) and was then used to instantiate three different non-nominal situations that were also investigated by the project. This paper presents the FRAM-based analysis carried out and discusses the potential impacts of automation, considering uncertainty and variability as two critical aspects that emerge from complex operation scenarios. The relation with AUTOPACE work is continuously established and the added value of FRAM for the pursuit of further AUTOPACE work is argued.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Facilitating the AUTOmation PACE—funded by the SESAR Joint Undertaking within the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant agreement no. 699238 (autopace.eu).

References

  • AUTOPACE (2016) Deliverable D2.1: future automation scenarios. http://autopace.eu/deliverables/. Accessed 09 Jul 2018

  • AUTOPACE (2017a) Deliverable D3.1: ATCo psychological model with automation. http://autopace.eu/deliverables/. Accessed 09 Jul 2018

  • AUTOPACE (2017b) Deliverable D3.2: competence and Training requirements. http://autopace.eu/deliverables/. Accessed 09 Jul 2018

  • Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19 (6):775 –559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balfe N, Wilson JR, Sharples S, Clarke T (2012) Development of design principles for automated systems in transport control. Ergonomics 55(1):37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boag C, Neal A, Loft S, Halford GS (2006) An analysis of relational complexity in an air traffic control conflict detection task. Ergonomics 49:1508–1526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdea GC, Coiffet P (2017) Virtual reality technology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañas JJ, Ferreira P, López de Frutos P, Puntero E, López E, Gómez-Comendador F, De Crescenzio F, Lucchi F, Netjasov F, Mirkovic B (2018) Mental workload in the explanation of automation effects on ATCo performance. In: The 2nd international symposium on human mental workload: models and applications (H-WORKLOAD 2018), The Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR), September 20–21

  • Christoffersen K, Woods DD (2002) How to make automated systems team players. In: Salas E (ed) Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research, vol 2. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 1–12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cinaz B, Arnrich B, Marca R, Tröster G (2013) Monitoring of mental workload levels during an everyday life office-work scenario. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17(2): 229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corver S, Grote G (2016) Uncertainty management in enroute air traffic control: a field study exploring controller strategies and requirements for automation. Cogn Technol Work 18:541–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Crescenzio F, Lucchi F, Gómez-Comendador FG, Puntero Parla E, López de Frutos P, Netjasov F, Cañas JJ (2017) Analysis on future automation scenarios in the framework of 2050 ATC. In: SESAR innovation days 2017—Belgrade, Serbia, November 28–30

  • Dekker S, Hollnagel E (2004) Human factors and folk models. Cogn Technol Work 6(2):79–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker S, Cilliers P, Hofmeyr JH (2011) The complexity of failure: implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Saf Sci 49:939–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djokic J, Lorenz B, Fricke H (2010) Air traffic control complexity as workload driver. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 18:930–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards T, Sharples S, Wilson JR, Kirwan B (2012) Factor interaction influences on human performance in air traffic control: The need for a multifactorial model. Work 41:159–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergonom Soc 37(1):32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission-EC (2009) Commission Regulation No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009: laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky (OJ L 13, 17.1.2009), p 3

  • Flach JM (2012) Complexity: learning to muddle through. Cogn Technol Work 14:187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fothergill S, Neal A (2008) The effect of workload on conflict decision making strategies in air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 52, pp 39–43

  • Grote G (2015) Promoting safety by increasing uncertainty—implications for risk management. Saf Sci 71:71–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Histon JM, Hansman RJ (2008) Mitigating complexity in air traffic control: the role of structure-based abstractions. report no. ICAT-2008-05. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2009) The ETTO principle—efficiency-thoroughness trade-off: why things that go right sometimes go wrong. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2012a) FRAM, the functional resonance analysis method: modelling complex socio-technical systems. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2012b) Coping with complexity: past, present and future. Cogn Technol Work 14:199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD (1983) Cognitive systems engineering: new wine in new bottles. Int J Man Mach Stud 18:583–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) (2006) Resilience engineering—concepts and precepts. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T (2010) Adapting plans in progress in distributed supervisory work: aspects of complexity, coupling, and control. Cogn Technol Work 12:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis T, Malakis S (2013) Strategies in coping with complexity: development of a behavioural marker system for air traffic controllers. Saf Sci 57:27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson N (2004) A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf Sci 42(4):237–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netjasov F, Mirkovic B, Krstic Simic T, Babic O (2017) Hazard identification approach for future highly automated air traffic management concept of operation: experiences from AUTOPACE project. In: 7th International conference on safety and security engineering (SAFE 2017), Rome, Italy September 6–8

  • Patriarca R, Di Gravio G, Costantino F (2017a) A Monte Carlo evolution of the functional resonance analysis method (FRAM) to assess performance variability in complex systems. Saf Sci 91:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patriarca R, Di Gravio G, Costantino F (2017b) myFRAM: an open tool support for the functional resonance analysis method. In: IEEE 2nd international conference on system reliability and safety, 20–22 December, Milan, pp 439–443

  • Prandini M, Piroddi L, Puechmorel S, Brázdilová SL (2011) Toward air traffic complexity assessment in new generation air traffic management systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 12(3):809–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivière T (2004) Redesign of the European route network for sector-less. In: The 23rd digital avionics systems conference (IEEE Cat. no. 04CH37576), vol 1, pp 2.A.2–2.1

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 6:99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian J, Wu J, Yang Q, Zhao T (2016) FRAMA: a safety assessment approach based on functional resonance analysis method. Saf Sci 85:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Jimenez V (2018) The amazing human factors and their dissonances for autonomous cyber-physical & human systems. In: 2018 IEEE industrial cyber-physical systems (ICPS) 15–18 May, St. Petersburg, pp 597–602

  • Wiener EL, Curry RE (1980) Flight-deck automation: promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23(10):995–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods DD (2015) Four concepts for resilience and their implications for systems safety in the face of complexity. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 141:5–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Q, Tian J, Zhao T (2017) Safety is an emergent property: Illustrating functional resonance in air traffic management with formal verification. Saf Sci 93:162–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young MS, Stanton NA (2002) Malleable attentional resources theory: a new explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance. Hum Fact 44(3):365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (1981) Multiple criteria decision-making. Mcgraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineerig, University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal

    Pedro N. P. Ferreira

  2. Mind, Brain and Behaviour Research Centre, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Pedro N. P. Ferreira & José Juan Cañas

Authors
  1. Pedro N. P. Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Juan Cañas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro N. P. Ferreira.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferreira, P.N.P., Cañas, J.J. Assessing operational impacts of automation using functional resonance analysis method. Cogn Tech Work 21, 535–552 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00540-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00540-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation